Hope Partnership Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201683627
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Madison, CT, USA
Phone
8603889513
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$833,624
Expenses
$758,049
Assets
$8,791,106
Liabilities
$1,423,024

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RENEE PALLENBERG (President)
  • DAVID CARSWELL (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • KARLA LINDQUIST (Executive Dir.): $77,447 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Hope partnership's mission is to create a continuum of affordable housing options in lower middlesex county, old lyme and surrounding towns in order to help ensure a vibrant economy and housing choices for all citizens through the collaborative efforts of governments, businesses, religious communities, civic organizations, and individuals.

What it reported doing in 2024

In addition to maintaining affordable housing for 33 low-to-moderate income households in essex and old saybrook, hope worked with our co-developers on 27 new units of housing, 24 of which are affordable, for a total of 31 units at this co-owned site. Hope also worked on pre-development, with a co-developer, to redevelop a historic school in clinton, the pierson school, into 50 senior-preference affordable housing units. Hope's efforts included advocating for affordable housing in the communities they serve as a way to educate the public on the need with presentations to community, business, and religous organizations. Hope has met with or presented to several elected officials and boards/committees in our region.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 90.4%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.1%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.6; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.6% of revenue deployed · 90.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $685K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $77K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.